Abstract
A pot experiment was carried out during successive seasons of 2015 and 2016 to investigate the effect of water stress on growth, nutritional and biochemical status of two pomegranate seedlings (Early 116 and wonderful) as in Egypt. The experimented seedlings were obtained from cuttings of two pomegranate varieties, namely Early 116 as well as wonderful. One year old pomegranate seedlings were grown in pots filled with sandy soil under greenhouse conditions, where they subjected to four water levels, 100% of field capacity (control), 80%, 60% and 40% of available water. The results indicated that the maximum values of vegetative growth parameters (shoot length, number of sprouted shoots as well as leaf surface area) were obtained when the plants were irrigated with 100 % of field capacity, while the minimum values were recorded at 40 % of available water. Wonderful seedlings gave the highest values of tested growth parameters at all water levels as compared with Early 116 variety. The decrease in irrigation water levels led to increase the hard leaf character, proline content, while leaf succulence grade and relative water content were increased by increasing the given amount of irrigation water in both pomegranate varieties. Although the two tested varieties accumulated high values of proline in their leaves when subjected to water stress (80%, 60% and 40% of available water), but the Wonderful variety accumulated high values of proline content under water stress treatments as compared with Early 166 variety . Therefore, Wonderful variety might be more tolerant to drought than Early 116 variety. The content of some macronutrients (N, P and K %) and micronutrients (Fe, Zn, Mn and Cu mg/kg) in leaves of both varieties were decreased by decreasing irrigation water levels. The highest significant values of some macro and micronutrients were found with control treatment (100 % field capacity), while the lowest values of these nutrients were found at sever water stress (40 % available water).On the other hand, Wonderful seedlings significantly showed a higher content of N, P, K, Fe, Zn, Mn and Cu under all water irrigation treatments than those of Early 116.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 13
Claim · model-written summary
Vegetative growth parameters were greatest at full field capacity and smallest at 40% available water.
- Taxon
- Pomegranate
Punica granatumt0 - Treatment
- 100 % of field capacitye0
- Outcome
- vegetative growth parameters (shoot length, number of sprouted shoots as well as leaf surface area)e0
- Direction
- maximume0
- Comparator
- 40 % of available watere0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“maximum values of vegetative growth parameters (shoot length, number of sprouted shoots as well as leaf surface area) were obtained when the plants were irrigated with 100 % of field capacity, while the minimum values were recorded at 40 % of available water”
t0“Pomegranate Seedlings”
Claim · model-written summary
Wonderful had higher growth parameters than Early 116 at all water levels.
- Taxon
- PomegranatePunica granatumt0
- Material
- Wonderfule0
- Outcome
- tested growth parameterse0
- Direction
- higheste0
- Comparator
- Early 116e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Wonderful seedlings gave the highest values of tested growth parameters at all water levels as compared with Early 116 variety”
t0“Pomegranate Seedlings”
Claim · model-written summary
Lower irrigation water levels increased leaf hardness.
- Taxon
- PomegranatePunica granatumt0
- Treatment
- decrease in irrigation water levelse0
- Outcome
- hard leaf charactere0
- Direction
- increasee0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The decrease in irrigation water levels led to increase the hard leaf character, proline content”
t0“Pomegranate Seedlings”
Claim · model-written summary
Lower irrigation water levels increased proline content.
- Taxon
- PomegranatePunica granatumt0
- Treatment
- decrease in irrigation water levelse0
- Outcome
- proline contente0
- Direction
- increasee0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The decrease in irrigation water levels led to increase the hard leaf character, proline content”
t0“Pomegranate Seedlings”
Claim · model-written summary
Greater irrigation increased leaf succulence grade.
- Taxon
- pomegranatePunica granatume0
- Treatment
- increasing the given amount of irrigation watere0
- Outcome
- leaf succulence gradee0
- Direction
- increasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“leaf succulence grade and relative water content were increased by increasing the given amount of irrigation water in both pomegranate varieties”
Claim · model-written summary
Greater irrigation increased relative water content.
- Taxon
- pomegranatePunica granatume0
- Treatment
- increasing the given amount of irrigation watere0
- Outcome
- relative water contente0
- Direction
- increasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“leaf succulence grade and relative water content were increased by increasing the given amount of irrigation water in both pomegranate varieties”
Claim · model-written summary
Both varieties accumulated high leaf proline under water stress.
- Taxon
- PomegranatePunica granatumt0
- Treatment
- water stress (80%, 60% and 40% of available water)e0
- Outcome
- high values of proline in their leavese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the two tested varieties accumulated high values of proline in their leaves when subjected to water stress (80%, 60% and 40% of available water)”
t0“Pomegranate Seedlings”
Claim · model-written summary
Wonderful accumulated more proline under water stress than Early 166 as written in the abstract.
- Taxon
- PomegranatePunica granatumt0
- Material
- Wonderfule0
- Outcome
- proline contente0
- Direction
- highe0
- Comparator
- Early 166e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Wonderful variety accumulated high values of proline content under water stress treatments as compared with Early 166 variety”
t0“Pomegranate Seedlings”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors considered Wonderful potentially more drought tolerant than Early 116.
- Taxon
- PomegranatePunica granatumt0
- Material
- Wonderfule0
- Outcome
- tolerant to droughte0
- Direction
- moree0
- Comparator
- Early 116e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Wonderful variety might be more tolerant to drought than Early 116 variety”
t0“Pomegranate Seedlings”
Claim · model-written summary
Decreasing irrigation lowered leaf macronutrient contents.
- Taxon
- PomegranatePunica granatumt0
- Treatment
- decreasing irrigation water levelse0
- Outcome
- macronutrients (N, P and K %)e0
- Direction
- decreasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The content of some macronutrients (N, P and K %) and micronutrients (Fe, Zn, Mn and Cu mg/kg) in leaves of both varieties were decreased by decreasing irrigation water levels”
t0“Pomegranate Seedlings”
Claim · model-written summary
Decreasing irrigation lowered leaf micronutrient contents.
- Taxon
- PomegranatePunica granatumt0
- Treatment
- decreasing irrigation water levelse0
- Outcome
- micronutrients (Fe, Zn, Mn and Cu mg/kg)e0
- Direction
- decreasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The content of some macronutrients (N, P and K %) and micronutrients (Fe, Zn, Mn and Cu mg/kg) in leaves of both varieties were decreased by decreasing irrigation water levels”
t0“Pomegranate Seedlings”
Claim · model-written summary
Macronutrients and micronutrients were highest under full field capacity and lowest under severe stress.
- Taxon
- PomegranatePunica granatumt0
- Treatment
- control treatment (100 % field capacity)e0
- Outcome
- some macro and micronutrientse0
- Direction
- higheste0
- Comparator
- sever water stress (40 % available water)e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The highest significant values of some macro and micronutrients were found with control treatment (100 % field capacity), while the lowest values of these nutrients were found at sever water stress (40 % available water)”
t0“Pomegranate Seedlings”
Claim · model-written summary
Wonderful had significantly higher N, P, K, Fe, Zn, Mn and Cu than Early 116 at all irrigation treatments.
- Taxon
- PomegranatePunica granatumt0
- Material
- Wonderfule0
- Outcome
- content of N, P, K, Fe, Zn, Mn and Cue0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- Early 116e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Wonderful seedlings significantly showed a higher content of N, P, K, Fe, Zn, Mn and Cu under all water irrigation treatments than those of Early 116”
t0“Pomegranate Seedlings”
The same questions in other papers
irrigation · nutrient: content · Punica granatum (pomegranate)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
1 paper more in this group
See all 5 papers →irrigation · molecular: metabolites · Punica granatum (pomegranate)Positive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
2 papers more in this group
See all 6 papers →Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.